DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first member in claim 7; second member, third member, and fourth member in claim 8; and fifth member and sixth member in claim 9.
In Applicant’s specification and drawings, page 3 line 21 describes the first member as a collar; page 3 line 22 describes the second member as a member of elongated shape; page 3 line 26 describes the third member as an arm; Fig. 9 shows the fourth member as a member that defines three rotational axes, page 4 line 1 describes the fifth member as a member of elongated shape, and page 4 line 7 describes the sixth member as an arm.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPLIC IND SOC ET (FR 1382296 A), hereinafter APPLIC in view of Udo (US 20070194594 A1).
Regarding claim 1, APPLIC discloses an openable roof (APPLIC, Fig. 1, and Fig. 2 and 4 shows open position) for sports cars, the roof comprising a containing tank (APPLIC, Fig. 1, vehicle compartment under the roof) (7); a fabric cover (APPLIC, 1 in Fig. 1, paragraph 0001 on page 1 of EPO translation described it as canvas) (11); and an operating unit (12) (APPLIC, Fig. 3-4) to move the fabric cover (11) between an opening position (APPLIC, Fig. 4), in which the fabric cover (11) is housed inside the containing tank (7) in order to open the roof, and a closing position (APPLIC, Fig. 1 and 3), in which the fabric cover (11) extends on the outside of the containing tank (7) in order to close the roof (APPLIC, paragraph 0002 on page 4 of EPO translation); the operating unit (12) (APPLIC, Fig. 3) comprising two lever mechanisms (19) (APPLIC, Fig. 3 shows the right side levers, same structure on the other side as shown in Fig. 1-2), which are parallel to one another and to a driving direction (16) (APPLIC, Fig. 1 and 3, driving direction is front-rear direction which is partially along the belt 6, which the levers are parallel to) of the sports car, and a front bar (37) (APPLIC, 2 in Fig. 1), which extends between the two lever mechanisms (19) (APPLIC, Fig. 1); the fabric cover (11) being fixed to the front bar (37) (APPLIC, Fig. 1 and last paragraph on page 2 of EPO translation) and to the two lever mechanisms (19) (APPLIC, Fig. 3-4); and being characterized in that the two lever mechanisms (19) are movable relative to one another in a moving direction (48) (APPLIC, Fig. 1-2, vehicle transverse direction, away from each other or toward each other), which is transverse to the driving direction (16) of the sports car, between a narrow position (APPLIC, Fig. 2 and 4), in which the lever mechanisms (19) are arranged inside the containing tank (7) following the movement of the fabric cover (11) to its opening position, and a wide position (APPLIC, Fig. 1 and 3), in which the lever mechanisms (19) extend on the outside of the containing tank (7) following the movement of the fabric cover (11) to its closing position.
APPLIC fails to disclose the front bar is configured to be coupled to a support ring (40) of a front windshield (4) of the sports car following the movement of the fabric cover (11) to its closing position.
Udo teaches the front bar configured to be coupled to a support ring (40) of a front windshield (4) (Udo, Fig. 1-2, front bar 13 coupled to windshield ring 20) of the sports car following the movement of the fabric cover (11) to its closing position.
Udo is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of openable vehicle roof as APPLIC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by APPLIC to incorporate the teachings of Udo with a reasonable expectation of success and have the front bar coupled to the windshield support ring. Doing so provides a support at the front of the roof and allows the roof to be secured in its closed position to protect and cover the passenger compartment.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo teaches the openable roof according to claim 1, wherein the fabric cover (11) has, when the roof is closed, a spread configuration (APPLIC, Fig. 1) and further has, when the roof is open, a U-folded configuration (Udo, Fig. 5, at least part of the roof is folded in a U-shape) inside the containing tank (7).
Udo is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of openable vehicle roof as APPLIC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by APPLIC to incorporate the teachings of Udo with a reasonable expectation of success and have a U-folded configuration. Doing so reduces the dimension of the folded roof in its length dimension in order to save vehicle space.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heselhaus et al. (US 20070080558 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo teaches the openable roof according to claim 1, wherein the distance (D2) (APPLIC, Fig. 2, distance in the narrow position) between the lever mechanisms (19) arranged in their narrow position, which is measured parallel to the moving direction (48), is smaller than the distance (D1) between the lever mechanisms (19) arranged in their wide position (APPLIC, Fig. 1-2, distance is smaller since they moved toward each other) and than the width (APPLIC, Fig. 2 and 4, smaller than the width of the tank in order to fit in the tank) of the containing tank (7), which are also measured parallel to the moving direction (48).
The combination of APPLIC in view of Udo fails to teach smaller than the minimum width.
Heselhaus teaches smaller than the minimum width (Heselhaus, Fig. 3, 8, and 19, minimum width would be the width between the wheel wells shown in Fig. 3, and the levers fit in between as shown in Fig. 8 and 19, therefore having smaller width).
Heselhaus is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of openable vehicle roof as APPLIC in view of Udo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by APPLIC in view of Udo to incorporate the teachings of Heselhaus with a reasonable expectation of success and have the distance D2 be smaller than the minimum width of the storage tank. Doing so minimizes the dimension of the convertible roof when in its stored position to provide more usable space for users and other vehicle parts.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo teaches the openable roof according to claim 1, but fails to teach the containing tank (7) has, in plan view, a substantially trapezoid-like shape.
Heselhaus teaches the containing tank (7) has, in plan view, a substantially trapezoid-like shape (Heselhaus, Fig. 1, both the opening of the containing tank and the vehicle outer contour forming the containing tank have substantially trapezoid-like shapes).
Heselhaus is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of openable vehicle roof as APPLIC in view of Udo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by APPLIC in view of Udo to incorporate the teachings of Heselhaus with a reasonable expectation of success and have substantially trapezoid-like shape. Doing so creates more aerodynamic vehicle body and saves material.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Viertel (DE 287068 C).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo teaches the openable roof according to claim 1, but fails to teach at least one stiffening cross member (41) with a variable length interposed between the lever mechanisms (19) in order to connect the lever mechanisms (19) to one another.
Viertel teaches at least one stiffening cross member (41) with a variable length (Viertel, Fig. 6 and paragraph 0023 on page 8 of EPO translation, cross member m is telescopic) interposed between the lever mechanisms (19) in order to connect the lever mechanisms (19) to one another (after combination, cross member m would extend between the two lateral sides where the levers are located, therefore at least indirectly connecting levers to each other).
Viertel is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of openable vehicle roof as APPLIC in view of Udo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by APPLIC in view of Udo to incorporate the teachings of Viertel with a reasonable expectation of success and have a telescopic cross member. Doing so provides a bow that can change length when moving between closed and opened positions without sustain damages, provides adaptability to different vehicle widths, and allows further narrowing of the roof if desired.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo and Viertel teaches the openable roof according to claim 3, wherein the stiffening cross member (41) comprises a telescopic bar (Viertel, Fig. 6 and paragraph 0023 on page 8 of EPO translation, cross member m is telescopic) or a crank mechanism (42).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukutomi (US 4695089 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo teaches the openable roof according to claim 1, nit fails to teach for each lever mechanism (19), a respective actuator device (13) to move the lever mechanism (19) in the moving direction (48) between its narrow and wide positions.
Fukutomi teaches for each lever mechanism (19), a respective actuator device (13) (Fukutomi, 110 in Fig. 10a, two motors) to move the lever mechanism (19) in the moving direction (48) between its narrow and wide positions (after combination, using the motor to articulate the levers will also move the levers in the moving direction due to the helical guide shown in Fig. 3-4 of APPLIC).
Fukutomi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of openable vehicle roof as APPLIC in view of Udo.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by APPLIC in view of Udo to incorporate the teachings of Fukutomi with a reasonable expectation of success and have an actuator. Doing so provides easier and more convenient operation without the need to manually operate the roof.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo and Fukutomi as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wolfmaier et al. (US 6139087 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of APPLIC in view of Udo and Fukutomi teaches the openable roof according to claim 5, but fails to teach a first articulated quadrilateral (21) connected to the relative actuator device (13) and a second articulated quadrilateral (30) interposed between the first articulated quadrilateral (21) and the front bar (37).
Wolfmaier teaches a first articulated quadrilateral (21) (Wolfmaier, see annotated Fig. 2) connected to the relative actuator device (13) (after combination, the motor of Fukutomi will articulate the levers therefore will connect to the lever quadrilaterals) and a second articulated quadrilateral (30) (Wolfmaier, see annotated Fig. 2) interposed between the first articulated quadrilateral (21) and the front bar (37).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 2 from Wolfmaier
Wolfmaier is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of openable vehicle roof as APPLIC in view of Udo and Fukutomi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roof as taught by APPLIC in view of Udo and Fukutomi to incorporate the teachings of Wolfmaier with a reasonable expectation of success and have more linkages such that there are two quadrilaterals. Doing so provides reinforced support for the roof and allows folding of the roof into smaller dimensions in the length direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the first articulated quadrilateral (21) of each lever mechanism (19) comprising a first member (20) coupled to the output shaft (14) of the relative electric motor so as to move with a rotation-translation motion along and around said rotation axis (15). Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art is APPLIC as demonstrated in the rejection above, and it is obvious to use a motor to automate an otherwise manual operation. Fukutomi, for example, teaches the use of an actuator/motor. However, the prior art fails to teach a collar first member coupled to the output shaft of the relative electric motor so as to move with a rotation-translation motion along and around said rotation axis, where the motor as required by claim 5 is an actuator that moves the lever mechanism in the moving direction between its narrow and wide positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose openable vehicle roof with both wide and narrow positions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
March 2, 2026